REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bill Maher - " All religions are not alike " .

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4429
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:07 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



#!


On this point, his words are undeniable.

Yes, in history, most if not all religions have their 'fringe' element, who'll commit unspeakable acts.

But we don't live 500 or 1200 years ago. We live in the NOW. And NOW, there's only one religion that is far more likely than not to murder you for not believing in or respecting THEIR way. Doesn't mean everyone who is Muslim will do that, but of the top 10 or top 100 acts of violence committed in the name of some god or religion, odds are greatly in your favor that if you guessed 'Allah' or ' Muslim ', and you'd be right.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW


He lost 99.9% of his audience with that one! Even guest Salman Rushdie did a double take listening to Maher go on. Dude better beef up his armed security asap.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Loved the " that's just liberal bullshit " line.

Nailed it.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Nothing in the original post here was flawed....




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:45 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nothing in the original post here was flawed....







Of course it wasn't. That's why the hippie Kumbaya nuts won't even dare TRY to dispute it.

They know.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


All religions are alike in that they follow orders from a mythical being.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:35 PM

HKCAVALIER


And meanwhile, whom have we been bombing pretty much constantly for the past 10 years with no end in sight? What religion is most prominent in those regions of the world we have been bombing the most? Terrorism is a byproduct of occupation, always has been, always will be. You guys think you live in a moral vacuum and ya don't. Sorry.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 26, 2013 1:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

Terrorism is a byproduct of occupation


It's staggering that you actually believe that crap.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 26, 2013 3:19 AM

HKCAVALIER


Stagger away, my friend. Stagger away.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 26, 2013 6:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Terrorism is a byproduct of occupation, always has been, always will be.

Amen, Cav. OUR terrorism was a byproduct of occupation, many conveniently forget that. Afghan terrorism against the Russians was a byproduct of occupation (and one we supported). When any hugely superior force overtakes a people who haven't the ability to fight back on their own terms, they fight back the only way they can, one at a time or in small groups, and we call them "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", depending on which side we're on.

Unquestionably, we are partly to blame for what has befallen us when it comes to Islamist extremism; their religion is used as a way to indoctrinate and recruit them (as Christianity has been in past history). Just as Christianity was utilized to burn witches, create pogroms, create the Spanish Inquisition...the fact that THIS is the world we live in today of course erases all of that for some, but the fact is that this IS the world we live in today...yesterday it was a different religion, tomorrow it will probably be another. The evangelical "branch" of Christianity is doing it's damndest to become the "religion of hate" right now; they just haven't gotten there yet. Given time, and power, they'd manage it.

Bill Maher is an asshole; I gave up on him long ago. He's the closest thing to a Rush Limbaugh for stirring up hatred and encouraging black-and-white thinking and he's an intelligent enough person that he should be ashamed of himself. It's easy to hate; it's harder to try and understand and recognize that all religions CAN BE dangerous and all humans CAN BE susceptible to being manipulated.

"It's not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths ... who say they're out for god and they end up doing..." (Maher interrupted him to blather on at that point)

Truer words were never spoken. Maher didn't want to hear them. Nor do some here, but they are true.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 26, 2013 11:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Anyone who claims Christianity is " the religion of hate " has no political sense, what so ever.

And this 'occupation' lie is beyond absurd. We're not occupying Afghanistan, didn't occupy Iraq, any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.

But maybe there is some fodder for future 'occupy' nuts, the next time they try to take over a city park. Just instigate some violence on their smelly hippie asses, and say hey... what else did you expect ? It's a product of YOUR occupation!


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:51 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Bill Maher's rabbi explains why rabbis must suck the penis of little joo babies during circumcision ritual:



Quote:

"A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice. The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it."
-Andy Newman, New York Times, "City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies," August 26, 2005
http://nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html
http://piratenews.org/pedophile-jewish-rabbis-kill-babies.html

Semite.
A member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including ARABS.
—Merriam Webster Dictionary

"A 'Semite' is any person living in that area, including Arabs and Christians. It's time we start talking about 'The Other AntiSemitism'. A Semite is not a Jew living in America or Europe."
—Ralph Nader (Arab from Lebannon), C-SPAN, 2003

"KHAZARS, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism. They may have belonged to the empire of the Huns (fifth century C.E.). Mas ? udi states positively that the king of the Khazars became a Jew in the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (786–809 C.E.)."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_1
1089.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
http://khazaria.com

"The name Ashkenaz was applied in the Middle Ages to Jews living along the Rhine River in northern France and western Germany. The center of Ashkenazi Jews later spread to Poland-Lithuania and now there are Ashkenazi settlements all over the world. The term "Ashkenaz" became identified primarily with German customs and descendants of German Jews. In the 12th and 13th centuries, many Ashkenazi Jews became moneylenders. Ashkenazim focused on Hebrew, Torah and especially Talmud. Sephardim jews there considered the Ashkenazim to be socially and culturally inferior. By 1750, out of 2,500 Jews in the American Colonies, the majority was Ashkenazi. The United States became the main center for Ashkenazi Jews. In Israel, political tensions continue to exist because of feelings on the part of many Sephardim that they have been discriminated against and still don’t get the respect they deserve. Historically, the political elite of the nation have been Ashkenazim."
-Jewish Virtual Library
http://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Ashkenazim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/culture/?id=35105

"The terms “Marrano” and “converso” were applied in Spain and Portugal to the descendants of baptized Jews suspected of secret adherence to Judaism. Converso, from the Latin conversus, meant literally the converted."
-Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Marranos.html
http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-marranos/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano

"Israel is a 'democracy'. That's a nation where everybody has an equal vote, equal opportunity, everybody is the same in terms of the governance. But I thought that Israel was a 'jewish' state? That means that Christians and Muslims and Buddists and atheists and anybody else is discriminated against. And they are. For exaple, did you know that Christians cannot own land, even if they were born in Israel, even if they're an Israeli citizen?! If you're a Christian, you cannot own land, it's a law, you cannot posses land. They'll rent it to you, they'll lease it to you, they'll make money off you, but it's a 'jewish state'. I'll repeat that, it's not a democracy. Here in America, we have laws that say you cannot rent an apartment to a gay, or a jew, or a Hindu, or a Sikh, or any one of a thousand weird religions. Like Church of Wicca. If you don't rent her an apartment, she'll go down to court and file charges against you -- 'He did't like me because I'm a witch. I have strange ceremonies. I worship Satan. What's wrong with that? How terrible of that Christian!' You can't refuse to hire a person because they're a witch or a Satanist. But in Israel, you don't have to hire anybody if they're not a jew. You don't have to do anything if they're not a jew. This was just a couple months ago in the Israeli newspaper: 'How dare he have sex with me! I'm a jewish woman. An Arab had consentual sex with me. But he did not tell me he was an Arab!' She went down and filed charges against him. Guess what? They indicted the man, they put him on trial, he admitted he had consentual sex with her, AND THEY'RE SENDING HIM TO PRISON. Hmmm, what a 'democracy'. That is 'democracy' in Israel. Give me a break!"
-Prof Texe Marrs PhD, Capt USAF "Not" Military Intelligence, Power of Prophesy Radio Show, Down the Rabbit Hole Volume 3, 25 March 2011
http://www.texemarrs.com

"Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to Jonathan Pollard (convicted traitor and spy in USA) upon exiting Pollard's jail cell

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:35 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Anyone who claims Christianity is " the religion of hate " has no political sense, what so ever.

And this 'occupation' lie is beyond absurd. We're not occupying Afghanistan, didn't occupy Iraq, any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.


AU, that was great, LOL!! You never cease to entertain me with your feigned moronics! LOL. The others here don't realize it's an act meant to provoke a smile though, you should let them in on it. You actually DO make them believe someone can be that stupid though, kudos you natural born actor, you!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Chrissy - Hope all is well in your world. As of late, your posts have lacked the usual humor, wit and brevity that have been more common place here. And you seem more bitter, in general.

Too much model glue? Not enough ?

Cheer up, dude. Life is good.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:34 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

And this 'occupation' lie is beyond absurd. We're not occupying Afghanistan, didn't occupy Iraq, any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.



Dude, Germany was officially divided into "occupation zones". Doesn't get more occupied than that. Pretty sure it was just as officially called that in Japan.

ETA: That, or chrisisall's interpretation. Can never be sure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



The Soviets occupied E. Germany, until the wall came down.

We basically rebuilt the nation, and then left. As we had always intended on doing.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:06 PM

AGENTROUKA


All four allied powers occupied Germany. They called it that, all four zones. That's not an insult, btw. Germany needed occupying. It's simply a fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:55 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.



Where the F*CK did you study History, you DUMB son of a b ****?

The United States Army did occupy both Japan and Germany after World War 2. Only for a short time, less than 10 years, and too short a time for anti-occupation resistance or terrorism to develop. Both duties were referred to, at least informally, as "the army of occupation."

We know you're a lying, cheating A**HOLE, but now you just proven yourself as IGNORANT and STUPID, too. Most of us had long suspected that, but now I'm sure of it, you just proved it.

E-T-A: Well, I coulda read the rest of the posts if I wasn't so mad about your stupidity. I see that a goodly number of us called you out on your ignorance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


NOBC - Not only are you wrong, you're needlessly getting yourself pissed off over the most minor and trivial of matters.

Japan and Germany weren't " occupied" in the sense they were turned into colonies or territories for the US or any other power.

As was correctly stated, they were " occupied " , for a time, because they needed to be, to help rebuild them and bring them to a basic level of sustainability.

In all seriousness, stop being such a knee jerk reactionary asshole that you go off on a crazed tangent at the drop of a hat.

I'm the opposite of being a liar, a cheater, ignorant or stupid. Simply because you disagree w/ me on this or that issue, doesn't give you the right to falsely accuse me of being such things.

It may help you dismiss my points of view to vilify me and cast me as some sort of dullard, but in reality, it doesn't advance your position one iota.

In fact, it makes you look all that much less of a person.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 4:43 PM

AGENTROUKA


But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 4:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?



Why ? Because the modern use of that word has been bastardized for political purposes. Yes, we 'occupied' Germany and Japan, for a time, after a devastating world war. But we weren't there to colonize or permanently take control of those nations. They ignore the 'temporary' aspect.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:00 PM

AGENTROUKA


Who does?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Who does?



Them. You know... those folks.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:04 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:


army of occupation: an army sent into a defeated country to assure compliance with the terms of the peace treaty: the army of occupation exercises military rule of the territory


Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, copyright 1958

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:11 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Them. You know... those folks.





Ah. I see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:16 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


post by Rap , this thread, Friday April 26,2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:



any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.




post by Rap, this thread, Thursday, May 02, 2013, 3:49 PM

Quote:



As was correctly stated, they were " occupied "





Further, Deponent sayeth naught.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:05 PM

HKCAVALIER


Dayum. My work is done here. Thanks everybody!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


There's occupied , and then there's " Occupied " .

Not unlike...



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 3:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Chris, I wish you were right; it WOULD be amusing. I think you're close, in that Rap HAS to be an act, nobody is that deliberately, persistently, consistently stupid. But I don't think he does it to make people smile, I think he does it for attention, to be contrary because the more contrary he is, the more attention he gets. Used to believe that; started giving him the benefit of the doubt because he can SEEM quite rational on subjects outside RWED/politics, but some of his more recent "arguments", culminating with this one, just make it impossible to believe he's for real.

Of course, the fact that he's doing so just makes him that much more stupid and that much more of an asshole, especially in threads like this where he, as clearly shown, is only arguing with HIMSELF, but that's neither here nor there...

Aside from which, who on earth ever called Christianity a "religion of hate"?? Where did he dream that one up? Obviously ANY religion can be used to foster hate, but...ach, why bother: See above.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 3:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

but some of his more recent "arguments", culminating with this one, just make it impossible to believe he's for real.


Niki - Bill Maher said it. All I did was post the video of him saying it.

And that , in YOUR mind, makes me an asshole ?

It seems honest, rational and sincere debate can only occur when one agrees fully w/ the extreme, hard core Lefties on this board, and even then, under their arbitrary terms.


That should be posted at the top of the page, for future reference.


And also... I'm more real than you can possibly imagine. Try some of that tolerance the Left loves to preach about so often.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 5:21 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Chris, I wish you were right; it WOULD be amusing. I think you're close, in that Rap HAS to be an act, nobody is that deliberately, persistently, consistently stupid. But I don't think he does it to make people smile, I think he does it for attention, to be contrary because the more contrary he is, the more attention he gets.



Agreed.

And I admit - I oblige him in his quest for attention far too often. But its just so much fun to poke the stupid monkey.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 5:22 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?



Right wingers love to redefine words when they get caught in their bullshit.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 5:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It seems honest, rational and sincere debate can only occur when one agrees fully w/ the extreme, hard core Lefties on this board, and even then, under their arbitrary terms.

No, with you, honest, rational and sincere debate--or "debate" in any form, actually--is completely impossible. You are, in every respect, the essence of a "troll".

In a nutshell:
Quote:

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

That's you, in virtually everything you post.

That tolerance you mentioned? When have I not shown it to you, whenever you actually make sense? As in, not just outside RWED and politics, but sometimes even AGREEING with you on politics! You trash "The Left" and anyone who disagrees with you; you even trashed ALL WOMEN when I quite politely disagreed with you about that "speed painter". Don't talk to US about tolerance!

Uh, Rouka, you've been around long enough, you know the answer to your question: BECAUSE RAP CANNOT ADMIT TO EVER, EVER BE WRONG, of course!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 1:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?



Right wingers love to redefine words when they get caught in their bullshit.



You mean like " marriage " ? That's the Left redefining words, not the Right.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 1:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Er, no. There is a push to redefine the law around marriage, which is not the same as hijacking a word for your own political purposes. Not a good choice for your argument.

I think it happens from both sides. Political discource is so despressing. Full of spin and half truths twisted to fit an argument or an ideology.

Perhaps on this board we can try to do better than that, no matter where on the spectrum we sit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 1:44 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You mean like " marriage " ? That's the Left redefining words, not the Right.



Disagree with that.

It beautifully evolved from a property exchange between men (property = woman) into an equal partnership. Opening up that partnership to include same-sex couples seems like the LESS revolutionary step.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 1:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You mean like " marriage " ? That's the Left redefining words, not the Right.



Disagree with that.

It beautifully evolved from a property exchange between men (property = woman) into an equal partnership. Opening up that partnership to include same-sex couples seems like the LESS revolutionary step.



civil unions solves the problems which gays seek to have addressed. Redefining marriage, however, only opens the door for more 'inclusion'. Polygamy has all the standing as does same sex marriage now. There's no compelling argument to keep 3,4, 6 people from sharing their love with each other.

But hey, no one wants to be mean, do they?



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 2:01 PM

AGENTROUKA


Got a compelling reason to NOT have polygamous marriage? Then use that to prevent it. Don't stop same-sex marriage if it's something else you don't want.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 2:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Got a compelling reason to NOT have polygamous marriage? Then use that to prevent it. Don't stop same-sex marriage if it's something else you don't want.



Thanks for making my point for me.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 2:11 PM

AGENTROUKA


I don't follow?

I merely meant to say that "If we allow this anything goes" is a nonsensical argument. Anything does not go, simply because usually there are sound reasons against most of those proposed escalations that wouldn't just disappear when same-sex marriage is a reality.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 2:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


There were sound reasons for man+ woman marriage only, and it seems those in charge ( though not so much the people ) have chosen to ignore them.

So yes, it's damn near anything goes. Maybe not minors or livestock, but when it comes to consenting adults of age... why not ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 3:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Aside from which, who on earth ever called Christianity a "religion of hate"?? Where did he dream that one up? Obviously ANY religion can be used to foster hate, but...ach, why bother: See above.




Uh, that'd be you, dearie.

" . The evangelical "branch" of Christianity is doing it's damndest to become the "religion of hate" right now; they just haven't gotten there yet. Given time, and power, they'd manage it. "


I get blasted for calling Radical *Jihadist Islam equal to being ALL Islam, but the same logic can't be applied when you try to distinguish between Christianity and some "branch" ? Where's the evidence of evangelicals flying planes into buildings, blowing up school buses full of children, or slicing the throats of little girls, on the their way to school?


( * Google Chrome wants to replace Jihadist with 'Sadistic'. How fitting. )




Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 4:38 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Got a compelling reason to NOT have polygamous marriage? Then use that to prevent it. Don't stop same-sex marriage if it's something else you don't want.



NOT to mention the fact that polygamous marriages are LEGAL, and sanctified by God ( although maybe he goes by one of his other names, ALLAH.) in other countries and religions.

But then Jehova, and his Number One son, Jesus, is the only REALLY TRUE ONE, isn't he?

Isn't favoring monogamous marriage descrimination against those other faiths, and setting up Christianity as a state-approved religion?

Anybody know enough about modern foreign religions to know if any other faiths allow polygamy? I think some others do, but I've never looked into it deep enough to KNOW.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 4:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Please, please, please... rappy comes here for his dopamine fix by proving (to himself, once again) that he's right and the entire world is wrong... even hs right-wing buds on the board. Do you LIKE dealing with rappy? Then don't. The only way to get him gone is to ignore him, and he will be left punching at the air and shouting at nothing.

Please, ignore him. YES, he's that stupid. And NO, he's not going to learn. There's something wrong with that boy, and all the arguments won't help him... they'll just make his delusions stronger. So, either for your good, or for his... leave the sick kitty alone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 12:24 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There were sound reasons for man+ woman marriage only, and it seems those in charge ( though not so much the people ) have chosen to ignore them.

So yes, it's damn near anything goes. Maybe not minors or livestock, but when it comes to consenting adults of age... why not ?




It appears the reasons for restricting marriage to heterosexuals are not sound enough. They are not ignored, they are found wanting. And I think you underestimate the amount of support for same-sex marriage among "The People". Christianity-based homophobia aside, it's perfectly reasonable to include same-sex partnerships into this solidifying institution, which, after all, encourages family values and thus benefits society. Most importantly, there are no risks involved that are not already present in heterosexual marriage.

All other propositions SHOULD be subject to the same scrutiny, and be judged on their own merits and risks. You can probably come up with good reasons why poly-marriages pose actual risks for the involved partners or complex legal ramifications within society. If you could not, then you'd have a problem, but that won't be fixed by denying same-sex marriage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 12:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There were sound reasons for man+ woman marriage only, and it seems those in charge ( though not so much the people ) have chosen to ignore them.

So yes, it's damn near anything goes. Maybe not minors or livestock, but when it comes to consenting adults of age... why not ?




It appears the reasons for restricting marriage to heterosexuals are not sound enough. They are not ignored, they are found wanting. And I think you underestimate the amount of support for same-sex marriage among "The People". Christianity-based homophobia aside, it's perfectly reasonable to include same-sex partnerships into this solidifying institution, which, after all, encourages family values and thus benefits society. Most importantly, there are no risks involved that are not already present in heterosexual marriage.



So, thousands of years of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman isn't sound reasons enough, huh? Left wanting, in your view, is it ? And not being in favor of same sex marriage is only about homophobia, is that right ? Way to falsely frame the position of those with which you disagree. What about Islamic based homophobia ? ( remember the issue for which this thread was started ? ) Why'd you omit that ? Are you a religious bigot ? Oh yeah, it seems you are. Same sex partnerships which support family values can just as easily be achieved w/ out changing the definition of marriage.

Quote:


All other propositions SHOULD be subject to the same scrutiny, and be judged on their own merits and risks. You can probably come up with good reasons why poly-marriages pose actual risks for the involved partners or complex legal ramifications within society. If you could not, then you'd have a problem, but that won't be fixed by denying same-sex marriage.



Hell, you could come up w/ good reasons why marriage itself poses risks for those involved, if you're willing to travel down that rabbit hole.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:43 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, thousands of years of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman isn't sound reasons enough, huh? Left wanting, in your view, is it ?



Yes. And 1man+1woman was hardly the only form of marriage practiced for thousands of years. Polygamy was plenty popular for a looooong time. Plus, the basic form of how marriage was practiced: Parents selling a barely pubescent girl to another man. Or, joy, paying him to take her. It used to be more of a property exchange. Marriage, as it currently stands in Western societies, is well-evolved from most of what was traditionally practiced. The contrast within what heterosexual marriage used to be compared to now is greater to me than that of modern-day hetero to same-sex marriage.

Quote:


And not being in favor of same sex marriage is only about homophobia, is that right ? Way to falsely frame the position of those with which you disagree.



I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that holds up solid. So I suspect it comes down to a general disapproval of homosexuality or religious appropriation of the term, since I don't find it based in solid logic.

And I'll amend to "religion-based" or even general homophobia if that's what irks you.

Quote:


What about Islamic based homophobia ? ( remember the issue for which this thread was started ? ) Why'd you omit that ? Are you a religious bigot ? Oh yeah, it seems you are.



It was an oversight. I was taking on the perspective of the argument within Western societies and Christianity is the dominant religion there. I agree that any homophobia, religious or otherwise, is bad.

Quote:


Same sex partnerships which support family values can just as easily be achieved w/ out changing the definition of marriage.



But why? It's the same thing. It creates an artificial division between the concepts.

Quote:


Hell, you could come up w/ good reasons why marriage itself poses risks for those involved, if you're willing to travel down that rabbit hole.



I'm open to that discussion. I personally favor the institution of marriage but everyone is free to make arguments against it. Since marriage is a voluntary, privileged institution, though, you find the more relevant discussion revolving around access to it, not protection from it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:02 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




Quote:

Rabbis Will Defy Law on Circumcision Ritual

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in New York City say if a proposed law requiring parental consent for a circumcision ritual linked to two infant deaths is enacted they will defy it.

During the ritual, called metzitzah b’peh, a mohel removes the foreskin and uses his mouth to stop the bleeding. At least 11 New York infants are thought to have contracted herpes from the practice, two of whom died and two of whom have irreversible brain damage, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

But rabbis insist 5,000-year-old ritual is safe, and say they refuse to tell parents there are any health risks.

“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” said Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”

Niederman said the research linking metzitzah b’peh to infant deaths is “full of holes,” adding that the ritual is performed safely “tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide, and that babies who aren’t circumcised can also acquire herpes shortly after birth.

“We are convinced that the data is flawed and there’s no risk whatsoever,” he said, adding that “safeguarding the life of an infant” is one of the Torah’s most important principles.

Most modern mohels remove the blood with a sterile pipette. But about two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities, who are ultra-Orthodox, are circumcised in the oral suction manner, Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America, told ABC News in March.

The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.

The law would require mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.

Niederman said the government should “do what they feel is right” and advise against the ritual if they think there’s a risk.

“But don’t put it on the mohel,” he said. “Don’t force parents to sign something that is against their religious beliefs.”

The city’s Health Department is scheduled to vote on the proposed law Sept. 13. But Niederman worries a vote to enact the law would force rabbis, who are “among the most law-abiding citizens,” to put their religious beliefs first.

“When it comes to the law, we are all there – it’s our obligation, according to our religion. But not when the law goes against our religion,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/rabbis-will-defy-law-on-
circumcision-ritual
/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:34 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

#!


On this point, his words are undeniable.

Yes, in history, most if not all religions have their 'fringe' element, who'll commit unspeakable acts.

But we don't live 500 or 1200 years ago. We live in the NOW. And NOW, there's only one religion that is far more likely than not to murder you for not believing in or respecting THEIR way. Doesn't mean everyone who is Muslim will do that, but of the top 10 or top 100 acts of violence committed in the name of some god or religion, odds are greatly in your favor that if you guessed 'Allah' or ' Muslim ', and you'd be right.



FBI Says Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil

An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data (as explained below, this chart is over-simplified … and somewhat inaccurate):



Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database



According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

(The chart is misleading in several ways. For example, it labels “Extreme Left Wing Groups” and “Communists”, but not “Extreme Right Wing Groups” or “Fascists”. It should have either discarded all partisan labels, or included labels for both ends of the spectrum. In addition, “Latinos” is misleading, as Loonwatch is actually referring to Puerto Rican separatist groups, Cuban exile groups and the like. However, as shown below, many of the basic concepts are correct.)

U.S. News and World Report noted in February of this year:


Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Muslim-American suspects or perpetrators in these or other attempted attacks fit no demographic profile—only 51 of more than 200 are of Arabic ethnicity. In 2012, all but one of the nine Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered were halted in early stages. That one, an attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, caused no casualties.

Wired reported the same month:


Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.

Law enforcement, including “informants and undercover agents,” were involved in “almost all of the Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered in 2012,” the Triangle team finds. That’s in keeping with the FBI’s recent practice of using undercover or double agents to encourage would-be terrorists to act on their violent desires and arresting them when they do — a practice critics say comes perilously close to entrapment. A difference in 2012 observed by Triangle: with the exception of the Arizona attack, all the alleged plots involving U.S. Muslims were “discovered and disrupted at an early stage,” while in the past three years, law enforcement often observed the incubating terror initiatives “after weapons or explosives had already been gathered.”

The sample of Muslim Americans turning to terror is “vanishingly small,” Kurzman tells Danger Room. Measuring the U.S. Muslim population is a famously inexact science, since census data don’t track religion, but rather “country of origin,” which researchers attempt to use as a proxy. There are somewhere between 1.7 million and seven million American Muslims, by most estimates, and Kurzman says he operates off a model that presumes the lower end, a bit over 2 million. That’s less a rate of involvement in terrorism of less than 10 per million, down from a 2003 high of 40 per million, as detailed in the chart above.

Yet the scrutiny by law enforcement and homeland security on American Muslims has not similarly abated. The FBI tracks “geomaps” of areas where Muslims live and work, regardless of their involvement in any crime. The Patriot Act and other post-9/11 restrictions on government surveillance remain in place. The Department of Homeland Security just celebrated its 10th anniversary. In 2011, President Obama ordered the entire federal national-security apparatus to get rid of counterterrorism training material that instructed agents to focus on Islam itself, rather than specific terrorist groups.

Kurzman doesn’t deny that law enforcement plays a role in disrupting and deterring homegrown U.S. Muslim terrorism. His research holds it out as a possible explanation for the decline. But he remains surprised by the disconnect between the scale of the terrorism problem and the scale — and expense — of the government’s response.

“Until public opinion starts to recognize the scale of the problem has been lower than we feared, my sense is that public officials are not going to change their policies,” Kurzman says. “Counterterrorism policies have involved surveillance — not just of Muslim-Americans, but of all Americans, and the fear of terrorism has justified intrusions on American privacy and civil liberties all over the internet and other aspects of our lives. I think the implications here are not just for how we treat a religious minority in the U.S., but also how we treat the rights & liberties of everyone.”

We agree. And so do most Americans. Indeed – as we’ve previously documented – you’re more likely to die from brain-eating parasites, alcoholism, obesity, medical errors, risky sexual behavior or just about anything other than terrorism.

Kurzman told the Young Turks in February that Islamic terrorism “doesn’t even count for 1 percent” of the 180,000 murders in the US since 9/11.

While the Boston marathon bombings were horrific, a top terrorism expert says that the Boston attack was more like Columbine than 9/11, and that the bombers are “murderers not terrorists”. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings were by non-Muslims. (This is true in Europe, as well as in the U.S.)

However you classify them – murder or terrorism – the Boston bombings occurred after all of the statistical analysis set forth above. Moreover, different groups have different agendas about how to classify the perpetrators (For example, liberal Mother Jones and conservative Breitbart disagree on how many of the perpetrators of terror attacks can properly be classified as right wing extremists.)

So we decided to look at the most current statistics for ourselves, to do an objective numerical count not driven by any agenda.

Specifically, we reviewed all of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as documented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2012). Global Terrorism Database, as retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd.

The START Global Terrorism Database spans from 1970 through 2012 (and will be updated from year-to-year), and – as of this writing – includes 104,000 terrorist incidents. As such, it is the most comprehensive open-source database open to the public.

We counted up the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. We excluded attacks by groups which are obviously not Muslims, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Medellin Drug Cartel, Irish Republican Army, Anti-Castro Group, Mormon extremists, Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation, Jewish Defense League, May 19 Communist Order, Chicano Liberation Front, Jewish Armed Resistance, American Indian Movement, Gay Liberation Front, Aryan Nation, Jewish Action Movement, National Front for the Liberation of Cuba, or Fourth Reich Skinheads.

We counted attacks by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Black American Moslems, or anyone who even remotely sounded Muslim … for example anyone from Palestine, Lebanon or any other Arab or Muslim country, or any name including anything sounding remotely Arabic or Indonesian (like “Al” anything or “Jamaat” anything).

If we weren’t sure what the person’s affiliation was, we looked up the name of the group to determine whether it could in any way be connected to Muslims.

Based on our review of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil contained within the START database, we determined that approximately 60 were carried out by Muslims.

In other words, approximately 2.5% of all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1970 and 2012 were carried out by Muslims.* This is a tiny proportion of all attacks.

(We determined that approximately 118 of the terror attacks – or 4.9% – were carried out by Jewish groups such as Jewish Armed Resistance, the Jewish Defense League, Jewish Action Movement, United Jewish Underground and Thunder of Zion. This is almost twice the percentage of Islamic attacks within the United States. In addition, there were approximately 168 attacks – or 7% – by anti-abortion activists, who tend to be Christian. Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional – a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization - carried out more than 120 bomb attacks on U.S. targets between 1974 and 1983, and there were some 41 attacks by Cuban exiles, and a number of attacks by other Latin American groups. If we look at worldwide attacks – instead of just attacks on U.S. soil – Sunni Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorism. However: 1. Muslims are also the main victims of terror attacks worldwide; and 2. the U.S. backs the most radical types of Sunnis over more moderate Muslims and Arab secularists.)

Moreover, another study undertaken by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – called ”Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States” – found:


Between 1970 and 2011, 32 percent of the perpetrator groups were motivated by ethnonationalist/separatist agendas, 28 percent were motivated by single issues, such as animal rights or opposition to war, and seven percent were motivated by religious beliefs. In addition, 11 percent of the perpetrator groups were classified as extreme right-wing, and 22 percent were categorized as extreme left-wing.

Preliminary findings from PPT-US data between 1970 and 2011 also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time, with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent 40 percent of all emergent groups from 2000-2011 (two out of five), they only account for seven percent of groups over time.

Similarly, a third study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Religion found that religion alone is not a key factor in determining which terrorists want to use weapons of mass destruction:


The available empirical data show that there is not a significant relationship between terrorist organizations’ pursuit of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear) weapons and the mere possession of a religious ideology, according to a new quantitative study by START researchers Victor Asal, Gary Ackerman and Karl Rethemeyer.

Therefore, Muslims are not more likely than other groups to want to use WMDs.

* The Boston marathon bombing was not included in this analysis, as START has not yet updated its database to include 2013 terrorist attacks. 3 people died in the Boston attack. While tragic, we are confident that non-Musliims killed more than 3 during this same period.

We are not experts in terrorism analysis. We would therefore defer to people like Kurzman on the exact number. However, every quantitative analysis of terrorism in the U.S. we have read shows that the percent of terror attacks carried out by Muslims is far less than 10%.

Postscript: State-sponsored terrorism is beyond the scope of this discussion, and was not included in our statistical analysis. Specifically, the following arguments are beyond the scope of this discussion, as we are focusing solely on non-state terrorism:

¦Arguments by University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole that deaths from 20th century wars could be labeled Christian terrorism
¦Arguments that our recent use of torture and double tap drone strikes are terrorism

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-pe
rcent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html



In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 3:00 PM

REAVERFAN


My, what a fact-free brew we have here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL